Does anyone know the specifics about NAVSEA and 6010 usage?

Date 05-21-2010 22:35

Because they said it is prohibited.

I may be wrong, but if I had to guess I would say it is due to the abundance of diffusible hydrogen introduced into the weld puddle when cellulose covered electrodes are used.

Best regards - Al

By Kix

Date 05-24-2010 01:44

Aren't 7018's spec'd under AWS A5.1 as well? I think they are and it states all AWS A5.1 electrodes are prohibited. I thought that od, but I may be wrong about 7018's being spec'd under 5.1.

By dlmann

Date 05-22-2010 12:26

In addition to Al, is there a clause to use only 70 tensile strength electrodes and above?

By Kix

Date 05-24-2010 01:47

No, and I believe 7018's are prohibited as well because they fall under AWS A5.1 electrodes. This might be were a Mil-7018 would come into play, but I'd have to say that it would still fall under AWS A5.1 so it's kind of a confusing clause.

By 803056

Date 05-24-2010 03:50

NAVSEA requires the use of electrodes that comply with the military standards when they are listed in Table II. AWS filler metals are not automatically "permitted" when the table lists a military standard that is applicable. If the contractor elects to use AWS filler metals instead of a military filler metal that is listed, permission must be obtained and a system instituted to ensure compliance (paragraph 5.2.1).

Even when an AWS filler metal specification is listed by NAVSEA TP278, the purchase order has to include additional testing that is typically above and beyond what is normally required to meet AWS or ASME quality control requirements. Refer to footnote 6 of Table II. The quality control testing typically required by AWS or ASME is not as stringent as similar military filler metal specification.

As I mentioned before, I assumed the electrodes prohibited by TP278 are those that are known to introduce hydrogen into the molten weld puddle. However, if that was the only consideration there would be other covered electrodes that would be prohibited such as the 6011 and 7024. I don’t know what other considerations are factors in NAVSEA’s decision to prohibit certain filler metals.

The low hydrogen type electrodes manufactured to a military specification must undergo more stringent quality control testing than similar electrodes manufactured to AWS and ASME standards. You would have to compare the testing requirements of AWS A5.01 to the applicable military filler metal specification to note the differences between the "standard" testing regiment for AWS versus the minimum testing requirements of the appropriate military standard. AWS A5.01 has various levels of testing that can be imposed by the customer for various reasons, i.e., nuclear or military applications, etc. These additional levels of tests (schedules) must be stated in the purchase order when the filler metals are ordered. Even packaging requirements can be added to the purchase order, i.e., hermetically seal cans instead of cardboard packaging for low hydrogen covered electrodes.

Best regards - Al

By Kix

Date 05-26-2010 21:14

Hey Al, I really appreciate the time you took to explain all that. It really helped out a lot and brought some focus to other areas of the tech pub that I haven't been to yet. I kind of thought it was going to have something to do with MIL-spec VS AWS spec. I'm asking all this becuase we had a 6010 procedure kicked back from Newport News for the that clause I stated above. Problem is, Ingals down in Pascagoula, Ms has bought it off. lol I really don't have anything to do with this, but I'm trying to learn and make myself more valuable. My company needs a lot of help with welding procedures so I'm trying to help as much as I can from my current position.

Thanks again!
Ray C.

By 803056

Date 05-26-2010 23:58

Hello Ray;

NAVSEA TP278 and 248 can be a challenge. They have things sprinkled here and there. They love footnotes more than D1.1. There is a lot of good information contained in the welding standards based on a long history of welded structures, but they are some the worst standards I've ever worked with.

I shouldn't complain, they keep me busy and gainfully employed between qualifying procedures and welders and providing the required classroom training.

Best regards - Al